Safeguarding savings and home if Care is required

oliveoil54

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Will there be any equity released with the house move?

Very little as the new house will cost nearly as much and with all the fees, stamp duty, 2 sets of solctors fees and moving costs will probably only just break even with an approx £5000 profit. Which is earmarked for necessary replacement of some windows in new house?

System

We are fortunately not (yet) at this stage, but have done POAs and asset arranging with this factor amongst others in mind.


We were advised that it is important to write down a clear record of your reasons for making any changes, which could include:


Optimum arrangement of assets and income for tax reasons (different tax bands)


Clearly stating in the POAs that they include the power/intention to make significant capital transfers for inheritance tax, children's house deposits, education, etc.


Wish to safeguard children's inheritance with regard to inheritance tax.


There are plenty of good valid reasons for transfering assets that have nothing to do with care fees .If you set up trusts, lay down a record of minutes of the meetings documenting discussions and decisions. Make sure these are discussed and documented with advisers and family, etc, to lay down a trail of evidence in case of future need.

lisyloo

at the expense of the local authority being left with the costs

I've said this many times before, but we checked out about 20 care homes last year.
Not many could meet the dimensia needs and it was very difficult trying to find somewhere that met MILs needs, met the LA budget and wasn't a long way for relatives to travel (not because it's too much hassle for them but because ultimately she's get less visitors).
The two main point I want to make though is that



1) some were in the overmydeadbody category. My SIL would have given up her job and caused herself and a lot of other people (includig daughter-in-law who get free childcare) hardship rather than put her parents in somewhere with where the dressings were hanging off and people were sitting in urine (the current home manages to keep people clean and fresh despite the challenge so it is possible).


2) The LA wanted to split up MIL and FIL who had been married 60 years. He was bed bound and she is wheelchair bound so travelling to see each other would have been very difficult and infrequent (basically wheelchair taxi being the only option). We fought and won to get them in the same home and they spent a lot of time together in his last 11 days.


So appart from the moral question of protecting assets it is not something to aspire to as you'll have a fight on your hand to get something decent (and we were lucky places were available when we need them as a lot of homes are now shutting whilst needs increase).


Personally I don't think how you hold the property makes a difference as the LA will view it 50/50. Joint tenants is easier on death (no probate) but I am not a lawyer (but have experience with LAs).


Why do you think half the house will become available if you move?
Please answer this.
I agree with the person that said that half of any released equity i.e. your spouses half, would become available for care fees (above the threshold) if you downsize.
You need to clarify why you have this belief that you might lose 50% of the total if you move rather than 50% of any excess above the savings threshold.

oliveoil54

lisyloo wrote: »

I've said this many times before, but we checked out about 20 care homes last year.
Not many could meet the dimensia needs and it was very difficult trying to find somewhere that met MILs needs, met the LA budget and wasn't a long way for relatives to travel (not because it's too much hassle for them but because ultimately she's get less visitors).
The two main point I want to make though is that



1) some were in the overmydeadbody category. My SIL would have given up her job and caused herself and a lot of other people (includig daughter-in-law who get free childcare) hardship rather than put her parents in somewhere with where the dressings were hanging off and people were sitting in urine (the current home manages to keep people clean and fresh despite the challenge so it is possible).


2) The LA wanted to split up MIL and FIL who had been married 60 years. He was bed bound and she is wheelchair bound so travelling to see each other would have been very difficult and infrequent (basically wheelchair taxi being the only option). We fought and won to get them in the same home and they spent a lot of time together in his last 11 days.


So appart from the moral question of protecting assets it is not something to aspire to as you'll have a fight on your hand to get something decent (and we were lucky places were available when we need them as a lot of homes are now shutting whilst needs increase).


Personally I don't think how you hold the property makes a difference as the LA will view it 50/50. Joint tenants is easier on death (no probate) but I am not a lawyer (but have experience with LAs).


Why do you think half the house will become available if you move?
Please answer this.
I agree with the person that said that half of any released equity i.e. your spouses half, would become available for care fees (above the threshold) if you downsize.
You need to clarify why you have this belief that you might lose 50% of the total if you move rather than 50% of any excess above the savings threshold.

Because it says so in Age Uk stuff. In their fact sheet its not half the equity, it’s half David’s share in the house, which is 50%

Copied from Age Uk Factsheet

8 If your partner wants to move later on
If your partner stays in your property once you move into a care home permanently, it is disregarded from your financial assessment for as long as they remain living there.
If your partner decides to move from that property, once the original property is sold, the disregard ends and your share of the proceeds of sale can be taken into account in your financial assessment. Statutory guidance states that, where necessary, you should be able to use part of your share of the sale proceeds to enable your partner to buy a more suitable property.
If you have an attorney with the appropriate powers under lasting or enduring power of attorney, they may be able to request this disregard on your behalf if it is in your ‘best interests’. For more information, see factsheet 22, Arranging for someone to make decisions on your behalf.


If I have to move and downsize at a later date, which will be more than likely, if property is in joint Names the Authority can take up to 50%. Unless Husband agrees to give a % of his share in the property that is up for sale to enable me to buy something using more than my 50%. But the only reason my husband will be in a care home at that time will be because he’s got so bad I can’t cope anymore which I sincerely hope is a long time in the future. But how can he agree to give that extra % if his dementia is so bad that he needs care? It’s a catch 22, it’s also the same for if he wants to help me by donating a % of his pension to help top up my pension, (we currently live on his pension as mine is v poor as only ever worked p/time after children).
His dementia at that time will preclude it.

He took early retirement for ill health but wasn’t able to claim an ill heath pension at the time, when he was capable he refused because he didn’t want the hassle. So because investment interest rate have bottomed and I didn’t get my State Pension at 60 as we thought, our Savings (in my name, for tax reasons since 2008) have gone down frighteningly quickly as we are increasingly dipping in them just to live. Neither of us want to make the same naive mistakes we made in 2008 when cancer or dementia weren’t even thought about, we had enough to live on and were happy, where has all that gone? It’s so depressing!

Mojisola

oliveoil54 wrote: »

My Solicitor is suggesting that the property be put in my sole name, with my husband’s agreement.

AIUI, for deprivation of assets to be proved, it has to be shown that the arrangement was made with the intention of being able to claim means tested benefits.

Your husband has a completely different reason - to make sure that you have the flexibility to move if necessary to stay close to your family.

I would go with your solicitor's advice - and get him/her to make notes about the reasons for putting the house into your sole name.

If it's challenged at some time in the future, you can deal with it then.

Keep_pedalling

Unfortunately whatever you do, should you husband need residencial care, the choices of where he gets that care is going to be very limited. With that in mind you should seriously consider what should happen to your assets if you die first.

oliveoil54

Mojisola wrote: »

AIUI, for deprivation of assets to be proved, it has to be shown that the arrangement was made with the intention of being able to claim means tested benefits.

Your husband has a completely different reason - to make sure that you have the flexibility to move if necessary to stay close to your family.

I would go with your solicitor's advice - and get him/her to make notes about the reasons for putting the house into your sole name.

If it's challenged at some time in the future, you can deal with it then.

Thank you for your reply. Trying to decide what to do is tearing me in half, as well as clearing 40 years of his junk and beloved tools that he can no longer use, all on my own!

oliveoil54

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Unfortunately whatever you do, should you husband need residencial care, the choices of where he gets that care is going to be very limited. With that in mind you should seriously consider what should happen to your assets if you die first.

Agree, another classic case of only seeing what’s in front of me, of course I’m going to go forever! No doubt I’ll end in a home myself one day, having a big family history of Alzheimer’s. But if it’s for dementia then I really hope they bring in voluntary euthanasia and I’m sane enough to tell them that’s what I want!

Mojisola

oliveoil54 wrote: »

Agree, another classic case of only seeing what’s in front of me, of course I’m going to go forever! No doubt I’ll end in a home myself one day, having a big family history of Alzheimer’s. But if it’s for dementia then I really hope they bring in voluntary euthanasia and I’m sane enough to tell them that’s what I want!

Once you get your husband sorted out, get your own
POA sorted out - do the health section so that your wishes are clearly laid out.

oliveoil54

Mojisola wrote: »

Once you get your husband sorted out, get your own
POA sorted out - do the health section so that your wishes are clearly laid out.

Had already done that for Scotland and we are both doing English ones and am def doing a Heath & Welfare one for myself. Don’t want our children to ever have to not be able to prove our wishes to the authorities, or medics! I would urge everyone to have that conversation with their loved ones, and put it in writing! Nobody ever wants to be in be trying to fight fires with a tissue!